As the philosophical and cultural tides rift onward in time, so does
biblical scholarship. These days, most Old Testament Theology is under
suspicion. It seems no scholar seems able to avoid infringing some system on the
sacred literature. In writing his 'Old Testament Theology' Walter Brueggemann
makes a worthy attempt at achieving this. Whether it has been successful, time
will tell. In the meantime, we have our own prose to spin.

Not many scholars are as gifted as Brueggemann is, in correlating thorough
biblical scholarship with contemporary issues from ethics and epistemology. This
ability colors every page of his writing, and is the fundamental strength of his
work. It also shows some fundamental dangers, as we shall see.

The job Brueggemann sets out to do, is writing an Old Testament theology well
based within the broad contemporary academic climate. Doing so, Brueggemann hopes
to create a possible grid for readers today in getting grip on the text of the
Tenach. Before taking up the task before him, Brueggemann first gives an overview
of the last decades of Old Testament study back into the nineteen hundreds,
showing the different discussions and their various historical and systematic
backgrounds. He does this in order to mark the continuity and breaches between
the work of former scholars of Old Testament Study, like Not and von Rad, and
Brueggemann's own thinking.

The academy today: a courtroom model

Positioning himself well within today's philosophical climate, Brueggemann's
sets out to outline a model in which he can do justice to 'the different voices
of the Old Testament'. To achieve this he proposes a model after analogy of the
courtroom. In the courtroom different witnesses are heard. The listeners must
decide for themselves which testimony makes a reasonable truth claim.

In doing so, Brueggemann not only creates an intellectual surrounding in which
the modern reader finds himself at home, but can also do justice to the verbal
nature of the Old Testament. In the past to much emphasis has been laid on the
historical parts of the Old Testament, as if the nature of Israel's religion was
primarily historical in the modern sense of the word. Such a view
however, did not account for the prominent place of hymn and wisdom literature,
as well as poetry as such have in the Old Testament. The sacred literature is
evidently not all made up out of narrative and chronicle, and where it is,
meaning and message are more important than historical detail.

Brueggemann rightly criticizes the older biblical scholarship for unwittingly
pressing some or other system or principle, originating from the cultural or
academic milieu of the scholar, on the Old Testament text. Brueggemann does not
however, provide Paul Ricoeur or Jacques Derrida with the necessary critical
notes, in order to escape this fate himself.

In light of his radical criticism, it is all the more surprising he does not
seem to be aware that his courtroom-model for interpreting Israel's testimony
involves pushing Israel's speech into two categories: positive and negative
testimony. This becomes evidently clear in the weight Brueggemann posits on
Israel's so-called 'counter-testimony'.

Negative testimony

Brueggemann points out how Israel's speech of it's God is not always so
celebrative. God is sometimes said to be absent, even aggressive and abusive. It
seems there rests a grim ambiguity in Yahweh. Brueggemann lets a number of
passages pass the review, to which we shall now attend.

Brueggemann is quick to show how in many Psalms, Yahweh is felt to be the
absent God. Fredrik Lindström has vividly described how in existential need,
Israel complains to God for not being there to deliver from enemy and
affliction. It seems however, too much emphasis can be laid on the accusational
tone in the expressed pain, felt in such Psalms. Does the complainant dirge in
Psalm not much more express the desperation, than negative feeling towards
Israel's God?

Surely then, the book of Job could be noted having a negative stance towards
Yahweh? And so Brueggemann notes it. Although Job get firmly rebuked by the
Eternal, it seems the divine Judge also vindicates Job's negative testimony of
Him against Job's accusers, when Yahweh proclaims Job spoke rightly of Him,
unlike Job's friends.
Its seems however Jobs words were as content is concerned, not all that unlike
that of his friends. Both seem to view divine righteousness as retribution of
sins and rewarding good deeds. Job's partners in discussion, maintaining Divine
justness, argue that since God cannot be wrong in punishing Job, the latter must
have done some awful crime. Job, maintaining his own innocence, argues that
since he is impeccable, God is acting violently towards him for no reason at
all, and so doing Job wrong, against which legal actions would be justified.
'Too bad I can't drag God into court', Job reasons. In short, both Job and his
friend hold on to the view that crimes are punished and good deeds rewarded in a
harmonious system of cosmic retribution.

So the content of Job's speech is not that much different from that of his
discussion-partners, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Sophar. However, while his friends
expound with cold logic how the Divine retribution-machine works, Job seeks
passionately to restore the good relationship he had with Yahweh. The reason Job
feels hurt is because God and he used to be on good terms with each other. In
Chapter 14:13-15 Job pleas to be hidden in the abode of the dead until God's
wrath has vanished. After this, Job proposes to God 'You would long for
the making of your hands again'.
The reason Job is vindicated by Yahweh in speaking rightly of Him, is not
because of what he has said, but how he has said it: desperate to restore
his relationship with God. Therefore, a strong negative stance towards Gods
righteousness is too much to make of the book of Job. The author of 'Job' is, in
writing the elaborate rebuttal of Job by the Eternal Judge', obviously on the
side of Yahweh, although very much aware of the painful questions life poses,
unjust as it is.

Despair out of a passionate love for God , not a longing to vilify the
God of Israel, seem to mark both Job and the complaint Psalms. The same goes for
yet another passage Brueggemann shows in his attempt at proving Israel's
ambiguous feelings toward that same God.
According to Brueggemann, Jeremiah 19:7 accuses Yahweh with sexual abuse. Verbs
like 'to entice' and 'to overpower' have according to Brueggemann, sexual
overtones written all over them. Be as it may, the ones being accused if one
regards the larger frame of the passage, obviously are those to whom the prophet
is enticed in bringing Gods word. The shocking language is therefore, not
directed to affront God, but as bitter rhetoric regarding those who disfavor
listening to the word of Yahweh, the prophet has to proclaim. Again, it is not
accusation, but despair that brings out the strong complainant language, in grim
and sometimes painful colors. The passage is not about God's guilt, but about
the prophet's desperation for God to act. Yahweh forced the prophet to talk, and
now the prophet tries to compel his God to act.

The enticing God returns in I Kings 22, where Micah ben Jimlah
confronts king Ahab with the incompetence of his courtroom-prophets. In a
vision, Yahweh, shows how he demanded a divine volunteer to entice Ahab into war
with Aram over a piece of land. To Brueggemann this is evidence Israel sees it's
God as easily bending morality if necessary to 'have Yahweh's way' As
devious as the passage may seem at first glance, however, a thorough examination
shows nothing could be more from the truth.
First of all, it seems obvious the main point being made in I King 22 is not
about God at all, but about the incompetence of Ahab's official prophets. Led in
by the ironic confirmation of their prophesy, Micah shows the blindness of these
courtroom officials with biting rhetoric: Although the king's prophets pretend
to know what Yahweh has decided in his counsel, Micah's vision shows how they
are the very instrument of Ahab's ruin.

We know from material from the Ancient Near East one of the main methods of
the gods to convey their decisions was thought to be a view in the divine
counsel. So we understand Jer 23:18 when it asks 'who has stood in the
counsel of the Lord' to seriously question the authority of the
prophets it criticizes. So it can boldly say: 'Don't listen to the prophets
that prophesy you, they'll make you surrender to an idle delusion', and 'They
say continually to those who despise me: "The Lord has spoken. You'll have
peace", and to everyone who walks in hardness of heart, they say: "no
harm will happen to you".In the same way, Micah's vision questions the authority of the prophets
appointed by Ahab. Surely they have not stood in the counsel of the Lord: They
did not even know the decision was made 'up there' that they were to be
deceived.

Secondly, the author of Kings 22 places Micah's vision before Ahab's defeat,
which is to be understood Yahweh granted him the opportunity to throw out his
prophetical personnel, and recall the attack on Ramoth. If the writer wanted to
depict Yahweh as a devious manipulator with immoral traits, surely he would not
have painted Him so merciful.
Thirdly the author of Kings makes no attempt to hide his disfavor of king Ahab.
So even if Yahweh would be depicted as not always being civilized - which
is not the case - the author's favor would still be on His side, giving
no reason to make a negative testimony out of his writing.

The same goes for the stories surrounding Saul and David. Brueggemann argues
Yahweh firstly manipulated Samuel into agreeing into giving the people a king,
then setting up Saul, and finally giving him no chance whatsoever to be a good
king. In the end Saul is ruined in favor of David.
Such seems a rather simplistic approach of the dramatic portrayal we find in the
books of Samuel. It seems Brueggemann makes to much in identifying exegesis
instead of remaining the objective viewer. What strikes Brueggemann as unfair
most is that David and Samuel can get away with or are prompted to do exactly
the same as what Saul is punished for. Saul is renounced because he listens to
the people, while at the same time Yahweh orders Samuel to listen to the people.
Saul is renounced for taking spoil from the Amalekites, while David can do so
without even the slightest warning.

The whole point Brueggemann fails to see, however, is that the main theme in
the Samuel stories is about obeying God. Surely Samuel listens to the people,
but he does so in direct obedience to God. Saul does so in direct opposition to
God. Surely David captures livestock from the Amalekites, there is nothing that
forbids him to do so (not even the to passages Brueggemann thinks do: Ex.17:8-16,
Dt.25:17-19). Saul however, when directed to launch an attack against the
Amalekites, gets the explicit order to kill everyone and everything. In his
insolence, he not only takes livestock, but also keeps the Amelekite king alive.
So Yahweh says to Samuel: 'I regret installing Saul king, for he has turned
from me and not executed my commands'. According to Brueggemann, Sauls plea
for forgiveness and ready admittance of his mistakes make him an honest man.
However, it seems the author of Samuel doesn't quite agree, since he depicts
Saul making exactly the same mistake, and the same confessions a few chapters
earlier.

From the narrative in Samuel it becomes clear, Saul is to be seen as an
obstinate man, insensitive to the word of Yahweh. Even his own son is depicted
as publicly denouncing him. Clearly, not only Yahweh is on David's side. So is
the author of Samuel. It seems strange to think, therefore, that the author
would label Yahweh's favoritism for David 'unfair'. We find nothing that would
indicate that. On the contrary, we find the constant painting of Saul as an
unfit king; rebellious, unthinking, delusional, malicious and pitiful.

In spite of all the evidence brought, we do not feel Brueggemann has no point
to make at all. He makes a strong case in showing the God of the Old Testament
is prepared and willing to make his hands dirty if necessary. The Old Testament
makes no secret of the fact however, that the world is a sordid place.
Brueggemann seems to make to much of negative tones in the sacred literature,
overplaying his hand mainly because of his need,- arising from his
courtroom-model,- to show a negative 'counter-testimony' existing in Israel. In
this, he has not succeeded, for the simple fact that Israel remains, in all it's
complaint and for all it's grim rhetoric, on Yahweh's side.

Politically correct speech

We come to another aspect in which Brueggemann seems to read his modern-day
worldview back into the Old Testament. As an evangelical Brueggemann may feel he
has to defend his academic integrity to politically left-wing oriented
intellectuals. This would account for some of the issues and positions he favors
to enter into his work.

One of Brueggemann's hobby-horses is his fierce renunciation of Christian
supersessionism. It seems however, this is not an issue originating in the Old
Testament literature at all. There is not a single Old Testament writer to be
found giving reason to think, he has even the faintest idea about a wonder
worker from Nazareth. Sure enough, there are prophesies and psalm-lines easily
attributed to Jesus' personality, but they are so encrypted one can only
recognize them as fitting to Jesus from an after-Easter perspective. The issue
seems to be, therefore, more a matter of dogmatics than of exegesis. An exegete
who is intellectually fair will not make either modern day Christian, nor modern
day Jewish exegesis of the Old Testament. This is not to say Jews and Christians
do not have much to learn from each other. Proper academic exegesis however,
does not start from one's own religious feeling,- be it Jewish, be it
Christian,- but with the scriptures themselves.

More disturbing is the pervasion of Brueggemann's desire to come to terms with
the current debate on homosexuality in his work. Not only is this unnecessary,
but Brueggemann deals with these issues mainly on a religio-psychological level,
trying to explain why people find homosexuality offensive, a subject in which he
is not at all qualified. Secondly, Brueggemann creates an opposition of holiness
and purity code on the one hand, and justice on the other, which seems strange
to corpus of Old Testament literature itself. He does so in order to promote
homosexual tolerance, which he pars with 'justice', in trying to show the
concept of holiness was more and more marginalized in time, being replaced with
'justice'.

Little allows for such a view. Although Old Testament prophetical literature
clearly is hostile toward hypocrite priests and a ritualist temple service, this
is simply because the God of the Old Testament is seen as viewing holiness and
justice, purity and compassion as, ultimately belonging together.
One finds the temple plays an important role in both the Psalms as well as the
prophetical literature. Regarding the last it is noteworthy, that when
righteousness is absent, the protection of the temple is being taken away. It is
obvious however, this has made up Israel's greatest trauma. Time after time in
the Babylonian exile, the reestablishment of the temple and its cult is being
confirmed. Just about the first thing Nehemiah is shown doing involves
rebuilding the temple.

It seems therefore that, instead of letting light from the Old Testament fall
on to issues Church and Society struggle with today, he Brueggemann allows issues
such as homosexuality and Christian supersessionism to determine his exegesis.

Most striking in Brueggemann's attempt to sound politically correct is a list
of people who pose as witnesses against oppression, where he places Yasser
Arafat next to men like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Surely, putting a
ruthless terrorist on a par with men who preached nothing but non-violent
presence, marks one's ignorance. Sanctifying Zionist violence against
Palestinian women and children is one thing, not understanding the bitter irony
of the glorification of an anti-Semitist murderer in a scientific work
describing the speech of Israel is quite another.

Conclusions

Although Brueggemann has done well in writing a book that is readable,
erudite, thorough, giving a lucid see-through of Israel's speech, inspiration
for studying and rethinking Israel's speech about Yahweh, it's God, as well as
affirming one's relationship with Him, the work has some major flaws, being:

Uncritically embracing post-modern philosophy

Because of this, infringing yet another system on the Old Testament

Forcing exegesis in the way of a negative 'counter-testimony'

Trying to hard to be politically correct

Letting current issues allow to determine the discussion of Old Testament
literature

This doesn't mean Walter Brueggemann's Theology of the Old Testament is
not worthwhile reading. On the contrary. It bravely faces up to questions within
today's academic world, biblical scholars cannot and may not ignore. Although
one can differ with Brueggemann on the question how contextual biblical
scholarship ought to be, one cannot deny times are changing as we
speak. Brueggemann has made a valuable attempt in getting to terms with these
changes.

No one can say how influential or lasting the work of Brueggemann will be in
Old Testament study. However, because of it's obvious merits it is sure to be
read with great enthusiasm in a broad audience for the coming ten years.
Hopefully biblical scholarship of the coming 25 years will find how to reap the
best of Brueggemann's labor.

The intention of the stichting Europese Apologetiek
(Foundation European Apologetics, called hereafter "the foundation")
is to further science and research. It is in no way the intention of the
foundation or authors of articles to harm people or to slander them, but instead
to help them with rational insights and warn them about possible dangers such as
cults and other questionable movements. The contents of articles, reviews, etc.
expresses the opinion of the authors and not per se of the foundation.

Concerning the attribution of some qualities (e. g. cultic,
unethical, irrational, superstitious, occult, etc.) to some groups,
movements and individuals on webpages of this site: these are only opinions and
not assertions of juridical strength; these are suggestions that there the
quality(ies) may be attributed to these groups. This is also valid for the
choice of links towards other sites, or links towards offsite articles.

Herewith we have called to your attention, visitor of this
site, that the pages and links on this site may expose you to critical opinions,
and that this is now your entire responsability to you choose to look further
and that the foundation does not consider itself liable for this.

Special Disclaimer: the Foundation European Apologetics does not agree
with the statement that Arafat be a terrorist.